Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1887-04-22
Sheep 0nterest.
SUNDRY NOTES,
From the National >tockman.

rom the NallOnll NIOcklItn.
In answer to an inquiry about the
cause of and remedy for stiffness in the
joints of young lambs, a correspondent of
an English paper says: The cause be-
ieve to be Il defective digestion of the
milk, and would suggest Il remedy which
has been found efiicacious by several
ed it; viz, a teaspoonful of saltpetre in
warm milk, to be given to the lamb in an
early state of the disease. and double
handful of the same dissolved in hot
trough until the lambs be restored to a
normal state of health. If the ewes and
lambs are in standing pen. the pen
should be shifted onto fresh ground.
1t will be remembered that the amount
of wool imported into the United States
last year was 129 ,0s4,95S pounds. OF
this total clothing and combing woods
made up the unusual proportion of 45,G4S,
992 pounds. The Philadelphia Textile
Bulletin estimates that the goods import
ed last year made from clothing wool
actually represented 100, 10000 pounds
of unwashed wool, not to speak of the
wool in the Sl.5ll ,492 worth of carpets
imported. Adding all these together
though without any distinct idea of
what bulk of wool that quantity of car
pets would require, it is probable that we
really imported last year in the neighbor
hood of 250, 600, 900 pounds of wool, or a
total within 35,O00,000 to 50,000,0 900
pounds as large as our own clip. If so
much foreign wool comes i'm under our
present tariff laws, how much would we
receive from abroad if the tariff were re-
moved? Here is a nut for the free-trader
to crack.
| In an article on this subject published
some weeks ago, to which our attention
has been especially called, the Philadel-
phia Textile Bulletin assumes that the
duty on yarns and worsteds is relatively
less than that on WOOL and that because
of this the woOlgrowcr gets the benefit
of only about one-haf the ten-cent duty
on wool. in consequence of the opportu-
nifty afforded for bringing in these foreign
products to so great advantage. 1t ar
CUES that worsted cloths are much more
poorly protected than woOens. and that
woOl-growers are "a much interested as
any others in having the duties on yarns
and worsteds readiuSted. The Bulletin
ends by saying: "Ihe manifest duty of
every man, woolgrower or manufactures,
is to see that the latter is placed in proper
position on the protected list. Worsted
goods should be under the wooden CLASH
fication and the rates of duty in that
paragraph should be raised. Yarns and
knit goods should be taken out of the
present classification and given a rate by
themselves propOrtionate to the duty on
woods. Garnetted and other broken
wastes. including ring wastes and nOils,
should be classed as secured woods.
Then, and only then, can the wool-grow-
err hope to realize the protection af-
forded by the present duty on WOOL
In view of this claim, and that wool
growers and manufacturers may come to
a proper understanding of their relations
to each other, we incline to favor the
suggestion of a correspondent in a later
number of the same journal, that ''the
various associations connected with wool
growing and manufacturing throughout
the country make arrangements for a
general convention, to consider the en-
tire tariff business, and endeayor to es.
tablish policy that can meet the approx
al of all concerned" Each is claiming
to have in some particular less protection
than the other. If these differences car
be adjusted, and the two industries Sc
harmonized as TO secure the best interest:
of both, it must be by conference. What
do you say, readers: